Iran Catches The Modular Bug – Meet The “Fateh” Assault Rifle

The Iranians have unveiled a pretty slick looking modular assault rifle, named “Fateh”, reports Fars News Agency. Clearly inspired by Western designs, the Fateh sports an ACR-esque gas block, polymer shell deflector, “shotgunning” receiver halves, what appear to be ambidextrous controls, a multi-position collapsing buttstock (though the one on the rifle in the photos does not appear to fold), flattop upper rail, and even an M203 cut on the barrel and an A2 flash hider. The rifle is currently in 5.56mm, no word yet on whether other calibers will be supported.

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.

Advertisement

Ryan

So advanced it doesn’t need sights!

Ryan

also just a quick clip from another “news article”

—-“Also a solo weapon, ‘Fateh’, was the third system unveiled this afternoon. Fateh is an Iran-made sniper rifle that fires 5.56mm bullets” —-

—-“The Iranian Armed Forces have recently test-fired different types of newly-developed missiles and torpedoes and tested a large number of home-made weapons, tools and equipment, including submarines, military ships, artillery, choppers, aircrafts, UAVs and air defense and electronic systems, during massive military drills.”—-

and my favorite

—“Iran on Monday unveiled a new drone named ‘Sadeq 1’ during the military parades at the mausoleum of the Founder of the Islamic Republic, the Late Imam Khomeini, South of the capital.

Sadeq 1 flies at a maximum altitude of 25,000 ft at supersonic speeds. The Iran-made drone has been manufactured for testing radar and electronic systems and training assessments.”—

Yes Allah is going to have a hell of a time deciding who’s rounds are more holly, as the the (mostly) Shi’a population of Iran will be pointing this rifle towards the much disliked Sunni population of neighboring ISIL territories….

Dzho ALehandr Azoeski nadze n

lol xdddd

Michel_T

Gives a new meaning to spray & pray…

–

On a more serious note, it does look good, wether it will be reliable, that’s another subject.

It’s not really that hard to say. Push a well-made AR hard, and you’ll see.

Joshua

Trust me we tested numerous systems and none showed any improvements, most performed worse and a couple performed on pay and offered slightly better ergonomics…. But we don’t swap weapons for improved ergonomics.

Esh325

That isn’t really public knowledge so it doesn’t mean anything. Maybe if tests papers are released.

RaunchyDawg

Just like when the m16 was being tested the US government rigged the tests to make the M14 win all the tests. Cause you know, no one ever lies.

I know much has been made about the newest crop of rifles and how superior they are, but they’re just not that different from an M4. I don’t think the government would have to rig anything to get the results they did.

Now, I am not one to ignore Army incompetence, but the burden of proof is on those who say the rifles are better to the nth degree, not those who point out they all work in fundamentally the same way and within the same parameters.

Joshua

Army SF is a bit different from Aberdeen.

RaunchyDawg

You are correct, one actually does their job.

iksnilol

Seems nice. Though the stock should be folding (just to annoy AR fanboys) and a 7.62×39 version wouldn’t be bad.

The better barrier penetration is due to steel-cored bullets common in (fmr) Warsaw Pact ammunition.

And it’s in fact theoretically less lethal than 5.56, not more.

I don’t see why 7.62×39 is more suppressible than 5.56mm, though I am admittedly not a silencer expert. Its subsonic loads do produce more energy, but they’re very rare.

Esh325

I think it’s the performance rather than the ability itself to surpress. It’s like the idea behind the .300 BLK. Bigger diameter rounds with heavier bullets yield better performance. I mean if you go by the old 20 year old Fackler tests then the 5.56×45 is indeed more lethal, but really those tests don’t take into account numerous factors than effect bullet lethality. The steel core might have something to do with it, but I think the fact that it’s a bigger slug has the most to do with it.

The Finns (lapua) have done extensive research on 7.62x39mm including on living animals (pigs I think) .
The 7.62x39mm does very well at close to medium range. Esanguination was faster than 5.6. Armor penetration was also equal if I remember, barriers like concrete and wood I think the 7.62 won. However; these benefits decreased quickly past 100m. Now all this was done with lapua ammo which has better construction, powders, velocities ect than comblock stuff. I am also not sure what type of 5.56 ammo they used to compare as it was done a long time ago I imagine it was m193.

When someone is shooting at you with an ak, laugh at them as they fail to kill you with direct hits. Then, shoot back with the vastly superior 5.56 and undoubtably do what the 7.62 could not, and that is kill….

Somebody posted a link to Finnish military information on either valmet.org uzi talk, or valmetweapons which turned into valmet.org I believe. It was a while back when I was into Sako and Valmets that I read it. Its probably in their archives if you ask a moderator to look. The Brits did a similar study as well about bullet diameter, wound cavity, effective range, ect. Thats how they arrived at the .280 as the best balance of the two. Having shot a lot of lapua 7.62×39 it is heads and tails better than comm bloc. Their 7.62x39mm AP has impressive barrier penetration.

The British were not the only ones to do a caliber study. The Americans, who gathered far more data, determined that .22 was ideal, because .18 was unfeasible.

iksnilol

How is it theoretically less lethal when it has about 24% more energy? Also, don’t forget that a lot of the ammo is M67 (at least that’s what I and my friends use) which has a bit reduced penetration (64 cm from 74 cm) but it yaws and tumbles much earlier. I have seen what that ammo does to stuff, not pretty (in a good way).

Neither is comparing a steel-cored, steel-jacketed projectile like M43 to a gilding metal clad lead projectile like M193.

Go buy a box of 20 rounds of Wolf steel-jacketed 7.62×39 and a box of 20 rounds Wolf steel-jacketed .223 Remington, and get a stack of untreated 2x4s cut into short lengths of maybe a foot long. Cut out and remove any sections with significant knots. Stack them about 8 boards deep and tape them together with duct tape, or, ideally, heavy duty zip ties. The more stacks you make, the better the test is.

Acquire or make something that can be used as a probe, such as a length of flexible wire or a car antenna with the end clipped off.

Stake the boards to the ground with fence stakes, at an angle conducive to shooting the wider side of the top board. Mark an aimpoint on the top of the first board. Shoot the stack with your rifle. Repeat as necessary or until ammunition is exhausted and post the results.

M855A1 has undergone very extensive testing. Probably more than any competing round.

iksnilol

Of course you are annoyed by something you can’t have that everyone else can. You don’t need to admit it, I know it is true. The very fact that you replied proves me right.

Commonality and plausible deniability is useful for y’all tactical types. Another advantage is short barrels, 7.62×39 works better out of shorter barrels than 5.56. That and better subsonic performance.

Going from 41 cm to 25.4 cm (circa 16.3 inches to 10 inches) barrel causes a loss of circa 200 feet per second (60 meters for us metric people). Considering that 2400 fps is the usual speed means that 1/12 of velocity is lost by removing about 38% barrel length. Forgive me if my calculations are a bit off, I am doing it quickly and am a bit tired (have some sleep issues).

While 5.56:

tactical guest

“That means a loss of 13% for 5.56 while 7.62×39 has a loss of 8%. ”
…while 5.56x45mm has already 120-130% muzzle velocity compared to 7,62x39mm.
Pffft..

iksnilol

But it also has half the weight per bullet (55-65 grains versus 124 grains).

ARs don’t usually have folding stocks and most people find they don’t need them (I, for instance, used to own an AR-180B with an ACE folding stock, and never used it, cool as it was).

So the whole “nya nya nya, ARs can’t have folding stocks” thing is sort of like teasing me that my car doesn’t have truck nuts. Yes, my car doesn’t have truck nuts. No, I don’t think I want any. 😉 Or to put it another way, the AK rifle is absolutely compatible with a folding stock, but the vast majority of AKs do not have them. Obviously, it’s not that necessary a feature.

You are comparing a chart showing velocities from three different weapons to another completely unsourced chart showing 5.56mm from god knows what gun. I am sure you’re aware that velocity can vary greatly between two different barrels of the same length, so in what way is that chart, even by itself, giving us anything like a sound comparison? Then, adding to it that chart from OutdoorsTrader (which actually doesn’t seem so inaccurate; it pretty much squares with my figures), and, as if to add insult to injury, you assume the velocity from a 10.5″ barrel will be the same as that from an 11.5″ barrel for the 7.62×39. Do you see why maybe I wouldn’t be convinced by this comparison?

Even if you weren’t committing those sorts of egregious comparative analysis transgressions, you further have to ask: What powder is 7.62×39 using and what does its burn curve look like, relative to 5.56mm? Consider that 5.56mm was designed for 20″ barrel lengths while 7.62×39 was designed for 16″ barrel lengths. Might that mean they have different powder burn rates?

This comes up in data on .300 Blackout all the time as well. It will be advertised as retaining muzzle energy better through shorter barrels, but in most cases you can actually look up the powders they used. Lo! And behold, they’re faster burning than those used in factory 5.56mm ammunition.

There’s no reason I can see that a wider bore or a heavier bullet means better energy retention through short barrels. Powder selection is the dominant factor here, and one can load 5.56mm with slower-burning powders just the same as .300 Blackout or 7.62×39.

iksnilol

Problem lies in that you can use faster burning powders in 5.56 but no one does.

Folding stocks =/= truck nuts, a better comparison would be cup holders or seats that fold down. Not really needed but can be very useful.

The newest versions can but not in Semiauto or Selective fire. it becomes a bolt action. Still the Point of a Folding stock was more for space savings in confined transports and when Jumping out of a perfectly good air plane. It was not supposed to make a Rifle a heavy awkward selective fire pistol.

John

We may laugh at this, but as soon as Iran/China develops a Russian 7.62 version that takes AK mags, I’d expect to see this gun widespread among different units.

iksnilol

@John

I wasn’t laughing at it, seems like a well designed rifle. Hope it takes off.

@Nathaniel F.

You and Yugoslavia have obviously used different M67 bullets. The ones I talk about (and use) yawed and tumbled pretty fast (about 3-3.5 inches in, in gelatin).

That does not seem very likely to me. There is not enough room in the stock for a buffer tube.

Lance

BIG whoop. Just a ACR with a M-4 barrel probably made with help from NORINCO of China remember just a few years ago they adopted there own Type 56 copy that has some AKM features, as there own infantry assault rifle.

Plastic rifle offer nothing over aluminum made weapons like the M-4/M-16. Come on SOCOM ditched the SCAR L because it offered nothing over a M-4A1 SOPMOD 1 and 2.

Is 5.56 in common use in Iran? I know they still seem to use a lot of Shah era hardware but I mostly saw HK g3 style rifles in pics.

-V-

Apparently they have quite a few M16 and M16A1’s floating around in their inventory. I remember a few years back they unveiled a M17 knockoff as well. But, yes, from what I have read and seen the 5.56 round is surprisingly common in Iran.

Roger Van Zant

Thanks for enlightening me. I appreciate it.

Christian Hedegaard-Schou

M203 cut on a rifle barrel without a delta ring so you can’t actually mount an M203.

Anyone else notice the last 2 pictures are of stoppages. Looks like a failure to eject and feed. Though hard to tell what the exact stoppage is.

Phil Hsueh

The problem that I see with this Fateh is that the back of the stock is perfectly smooth, unless there’s a rubber end cap on it that thing isn’t going to sit in the shoulder pocket very well.

dp

A copy of copies; not worth of paying attention to.

attackbeaver

Look a lot like the robinson XCR

Lance

All this crap about folding stocks you dont need them. A fully collapsed M-4 stock is portable enough. Its more from the plastic gun fan boys trying to annoy AR owners. Face is you dont need a folding stock. The USMC gets by w/o them quite fine.

PS I dont call Irans equipment good quality anyway. Dont need it for human wave assaults with suicidal teenagers like the used against Iraq any way.

ColaBox

Dude that’s actually pretty badass. Whens it coming to the US?

Man pippy

Just publicity, Iran can’t afford to field this rifle. Would be much more impressed if they announced a tactical accessory package for their standard military AK rifle.

Huaba Sepp

They need a ak as standard rifle first. They switched from the G3 to a ar-15-based Bullpup

Darius Ashkani

You dont understand Irans military. Depending on how rich the province of the armed forces is, the better the equipment, hence why northern Iranian states are better armed and even trained than the southern ones. The worst provincial army is in Irans baluchistan.

Darius Ashkani

And they could absokutely standardize it.

Farzam Mir

There has already been several accessory packages for AK rifles in Iran